This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Shadow Framebuffer Test 1
- Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Shadow Framebuffer Test 1
- From: Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:52:23 -0500
- Cc: "'cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com'" <cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com>
I am not into XEmacs. Does XEmacs run without an X-server?
Suhaib
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:49 AM
> To: Suhaib Siddiqi
> Cc: 'cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com'
> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Shadow Framebuffer Test 1
>
>
> Suhaib Siddiqi wrote:
> >
> >
> > The code which comes with Xfree86 has some different export symbols.
> > libz.dll reports at least one missing symbol if the one
> from cygwin/contrib
> > is used.
> > I have not compared xpm code from xfree86 with Chuck code,
> but Xpm is now
> > standard library for Xfree86 4.x.
>
> Code was taken from 4.0.1 XFree86 distribution. (Acutally, at
> that time
> it was identical to 3.4k except for some documentation strings.)
>
> > Some users at opendx mailing list
> > reported weierd pixels
> > if xpm from contrib directory was linked. Xpm is part of
> Xfree86 4.0 and it
> > will be going
> > through modifications and enhancements by Xfree86 team. I,
> personally,
> > see no reasons to distribute Xpm separately any more. How
> many applications
> > use
> > Xpm compiled with MSVC without X? I am hardly aware of
> any, except, perhaps
> > Buba rxvt?
>
> XEmacs. And that ONE app is enough to justify the cygXpm-noX.dll IMO.
>
> --Chuck
>